New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-05-30
PRICE THREE CENTS.
FARRAGUT IN. MOBILE BAY.
PROOF THAT HE WAS LAsHED TO THE
RIGGING :,
TWO MEN WHO DID IT AT DIFFERENT TINES IN
THE FIGHT GIVE THEIR TEsTIMoNY--LoYALL
FARRAGUT AND CAPTAIN WATSON DisPgovE

FARRAGUT AND CAPTAIN WATSON DrsPgovE
RECENT STORIES ABOUT THE. AFFAIR
The picture of Farragut lashed to the rigging Of
his flagship, the Hartford, needless Of torpedocs
regardless of the storm of shot and shell that
ragged about him leading his feet to victory haS
been much talked about and written about. There
is something in the scene depicted which appeals
strongly to the popular imagination. 1t has come
to be regarded as tho most dramatic incident in
that memorable Mobile Bay fight. But it has often
been denied that Farragut was at any time lashed
to the rigging and those making the statement
have been accused of being actuated by love OF
Ideally in preference to truth" Pages celebrated
picture which prints and Autographs have rem
dered familiar to everybody has been criticised a,
"overdrawn." so far. ut least concerns the atti
tude in which the Admiral is shown. lashed to the
shrouds. The accuracy of Brownells poem 1.-The
Bay Fight" has been disputed on the same ground.
The controversy breaks out every few years 1t
broke out afresh recently in dispatch to The
Ne,c- York Times from Kingston, N. Y, which
published with the headline "Settlng a Disputed
Point to Admiral Farraguts Position" The
point is supposed to be settled by letter quoted
in full, written by Martin Freeman, who was the
Hartfords pilot in the Mobile Bay combat, for the
express purpose Of correcting some misapprehen-
sons about the ashng-to-the-riggin story and
its correctness is vouched for by Captain C. N.
Schoonmaker, of the United States Navy, who was
executive officer of the Union monitor Manhattan
on the day Of the battle. In his letter Martin
Freeman says:
ford rwas proposed by Fleet Captain p Drayton that
Admiral and self should be asaed in the rigging said
Admiral desired to go whsre would him. told him
the anS ii the &d@ra in ack
under the TOP on the port sde 50 he could tell me and give
Then follows great many details Of the fight.
Martin Freeman is the keeper of Horn Island Light
house, Mississippi Sound, and his letter was adj
dressed to II. ID. Baldwin. OF Kingston. who was
masters mate on the Port Royal, which also parici-
pated in the engagement. By giving the letter tor
publication Mr.. Baldwin seemingly vouches for its
accuracy.
SENDING COPIES OF THE STORY TO THE cZAR.
On the following day The Times contained an
other dispatch from Kingston stating that "copes
of The Nec-York Times Of to-day. containing the
letter of the AdmiraPs pilot, Martin Freeman,
denying that the Admiral was lasbed to the rigging
Of the Hartford, were mailed to-day from tho
Kingston Post-office to the Emperor Of Russia at
st. Petersburg by old sailors here who were eve.
witnesses of the incidents set forth IN The Times"
The dispatch says further that the picture
painted by artist Page. representing Admiral Far
ragut lashed to the rigging of the Hartford in the
Mobile Bay fight, on August D. ls64 was sold to
the Car of all the Russas for $4,000 and hangs
now in the palace at ST. Petersburg" Therefore
the object in mailing him copies of The Times is TO
discIedit this picture which 10 hSWeyer @ was % not
licly presented to the Grand Duke Alexis by the
citizens New. York the occasion of his visit TO
by General Dix.
CaptainJ. Crittenden Watson, who was the Flag
Lieutenant of the Hartford. and Admiral farra-
recently staying in the city as the guest OF Loyal
Farragut. the son of the great Admiral, Cap
tain Watson was promoted 10 fuld m cap, h!s
tancy short time ago and was on Dis
way to Washington to undergo the necessary ex-
animation, having for that purpose left the lro-
commander Of the lroquois when he received ms
promotion. 1t seemed that these two gentlemen;
between them, could furnish such evidence as Would
settle once for all the question whether Admiral
Farragut or was not lashed TO the raging.
Accordingly a reporter Of rRE RIBUNE called upon
them at Mr.. Farraguts house. No. l Is East Ihirty-
sixrh-st Mr. Farragut not at first disposed TO
consider seriously the lates, attempts TO dscredit
the incident depicted in Pages picture and recorded
by various historians and writer's
Periodically" he said, " like an epidemic OF
measles whooping cough. there is Inflicted upon
tne country Try new tSe oi forts shs m S
bile Bay. | suppose that whenever the
weather gets uncomfortably hot around old Mar
tin Freemans lighthouse he solaces himself By Civ
ing a new version of the tight. Really his account
of his association with my rather during the battle
reminds me Of the wel-known description OF an
engagement given by Private OShaughnessy, OF
Company X. The General rode up and down the
line looking perplexed, when suddenly he called
"'Is Private Oshaugnessy. of Company X,
PRESENT. -uonor,
Then let the battle begin
"see how Freeman writes about it: 'lsaid 10 the
Admiral. 4 told him TO come along with
the 4d%a T1t to fSSE sSp 10 mss tse four a
bells 50 we started on full power. Istartted
the ship ahead, i ! told him to look ahead to
II expect to see an account of the battle some
day with my father left out of it, Well Freeman did
his work we'll as pilot and got due credit Tor It.
But be is not an historian His memory Is evident
ly getting shaky. Since his letter was published a
writer has pointed out several inaccuracies IN his
description Of the ght SUCH tor nstanee ,h a. % dnst
lyn as Freeman states The Admiral did not need
to ask what monitor was sunk, because he saw the
the ram tennessee. but the Chicasaw, and SO on.
These inaccuracies don't affect the lashed-to.th
rigging story. but they show now untrustworthy
Freeman's memory Is getting"
WHAT CAN THE MOTIVE BE!
After glancing over the second Kingston dispatch
in The Times Mr.. Farragut continued: There
seems to be a certain amount of malignity behind
this attempt to dscredit the picture of poor Page
who Is dead and gone. that moves me. despite tho
stupid fashion in which it is done. to go into rho
question and try to settle it. and with Captain
Watson's assistance think that We can put tho
matter IN such light that no reasonable person
can ever again entertain any doubt about 1t.
First, [ will say something about the
aba telnents of those who seem 50 bent
: hat the Admiral was not dashed to the rigeiug.
Their ties tImony in the main merely negative
They didn't happen to notice that he was secured
TO the rigging therefore they conclude that no
wasn't secured to the rigging Such testimony
isn't proof far from it. 1t can't weigh feathers
weight IN the balance against positive testimony
that he was secured to the rigging. Any person
gifted with any common sense must see this. !
think tins controversy was first started several
wears ago by an article The Century written by Mr.
III. D. Baldwin, of Kingston, masters mate on the
Port Royal IN the Mobile Bay fight; and he wrote
than desire to write truthfuily about great event
What other motive should any OF us have
who have written ABOUT that great fight
and what Admiral Farragut did on that
dayi In that engagement Mr.. Baldwin says that
he acted as signal oficer aud occupied an elevated
position on the Port Royal, which was Just astern
of the Hartford Well. Mr. Baldwin didn't notice
any rope or hammock. lashing securing the ADMIRAL
to the shrouds. 1t would have been strange II ne
had noticed an object so small through the smoke
OF great battle But because he did not see any